David Kempe wrote: > Nick Webb wrote: >> I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= >> 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is >> the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a >> 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, >> so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. >> > > Importantly, you can have data-loss on XFS if you lose power suddenly, > perhaps more so than ext3. When files get corrupted on XFS, I have > noticed they go to zero size, whereas in messy situations with ext3 I > have noticed you are more likely to loose metadata than data. I still > would stick with XFS anyday though, even just because the sheer increase > in format time.
I've experienced this data loss on XFS more than once due to one kind of abrupt shutdown or another. XFS seems fragile. Almost like it's not a journaled filesystem at all. XFS has several advantages over ext3. But I abandoned it because of this fragility. Ext3 seems far more idiot proof and I prefer things that "just work" even if they're not glamorous. Just my experiences. Michael -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
